Recap of 4/23 HOA Meeting: Development of land just "West of Aventura"

Last night the area Homeowners' Association had a really informative agenda, but only 50 or so residents were interested enough to attend (which is why this blog exists: for the lazy majority). 

The HOA is doing some good work, but it's doing so with only 141 paid members (170 paid last year).  In this writer's opinion the HOA dues should be lowered to $10 (instead of going up this year from $25 to $30).  More members = more mandate, and with over $25,000 in the bank (representing 5 years' worth of accumulated collections), Carl Icahn [activist-investor] would be pounding the table for a special-dividend.  I would agree, recommending (i) a decrease in dues to $10, with current paid members getting a 3-year membership in return for having already paid $30. 

Other than some once-annual printing costs (which could probably be minimized if mailings were coordinated with e-mails and Nextdoor), the cost of refreshments at meetings (unnecessary - bottled water is evil!), there should be no cost to operating an HOA - the venues are donated without charge, and the membership and board are volunteers, so why the cash hoard?  Maybe some of that money could be put toward beautification: "Lower the fees and plant some trees!"

But I digress.  On to the substantive aspects of the meeting:

1. Interstate highway 95 construction goes on.  After lobbying by residents (myself included) for years, the southbound off-ramp to Ives Dairy will (at last) be expanded from the 1-lane bottleneck in a few short weeks.  Another lane is being added all the way from Ives Dairy to Hallandale Beach Blvd. (this will take longer), and in about one year (May 2015) a new "express lane" will be added, similar to the "pay lane" you see when driving south to Miami.  Good news for drivers of hybrid and electric cars (who ride free), and good news for people with money.

2.  Development
The most important information coming from the meeting concerned land development in our area.  The most important concerned passenger rail and the potential for a new station.  That is such a large topic it needs a separate post (to come). 

Today's post examines the vacant parcels as they are today with a little history, and a little investigative journalism.  To begin, let's take a look at the land, which is SOUTH of Ives Dairy, EAST of NE 26th Ave, West of West Dixie Highway, and NORTH of 195th Street:

The above image has been labelled to show who owns what.  The northern-most labelled parcel is the future site of the Beacon Tower (see this earlier post for more details - in fact go and read that post right now).

Proceeding southward, the largest parcel follows, owned by "LG Aventura, LLC."  This parcel is owned by Gables Residential, who were represented at the HOA meeting last night by Sheldon Powell, who explained that a rental community composed of townhomes and several hundred apartments are basically a done-deal as far as approvals from the County (no approval needed from local residents however, given that we are not a "city" with a "government"). 

South of that large parcel is where things get interesting, beginning with 19800 West Dixie Highway, a 122,068 sf parcel owned by “Eliahu Ben Shmuel Trust, and Daniel Mims Ben Shmuel Trust.”  The owner address is an address in Tennessee, but Eliahu Ben-Shmuel is a businessman in his 70s living in Golden Beach, who previously founded Swiss Watch International (a Florida-based company that “designs and makes timepieces worldwide,” including counterfeiting Seiko and Pulsar watches, according to this 2002 case).  The most amazing thing about the case is that you can make any money counterfeiting a crappy Pulsar watch! SWI was started by Eliahu (“Eli”) in 1995, but was later run by his 3 sons Izac (42), Lior (40) and Shlomi (36) [source], before being sold in late 2012.  Hey: who needs to be in the watch business when owning real estate can be so lucrative!  

This parcel was purchased (together with the others described below) for $3.4M in December 2012.  With the potential to sell the land for mega bucks for use as a commuter rail station (hey!  I told you to go and read this earlier post for more details already!), the Ben-Shmuels may well be the future Soffers of "West Aventura"! [the Soffers are the family that brought you the soon-to-be second largest mall in America - see earlier post here for more details].

19790 WDH is owned by March Property Acquisitions LLC.  The 37,684sf parcel was bought in September 2013 for $1.25M.  The uninformative name of the company suggests it is a limited-liability vehicle for another larger company to operate secretly - possibly one of the 2 hotels (yes, hotels) that are rumored to have development plans in the area (Hampton Inn or Holiday Inn Express).

Next to the south is 19770 owned, again, but the Ben-Shmuel trusts.  This 54,014sf parcel was purchased (together with other parcels) for $3.4M in December 2012.

Last comes 19680, a 49,223 sf parcel also owned by the Ben-Shmuel trusts, and part of the $3.4M deal in December 2012.

The parcels South of the above-described land have already been developed. If you haven't driven by recently, you will be surprised to see several residential buildings that will be occupied very soon.

So now you have some idea of the parcels, their sizes, possible uses and ownership.  So much has happened in this area already without any oversight or input, which is really a shame, and one of the reasons why this blog, nextdoor.com, and the HOA are necessary.  So please keep reading, join Nextdoor [use this link], and join the HOA (complaining about the cost when you do).

Next up: Aventura's "Grand Central Station" with a pedestrian overpass to the Mall ... on OUR property?  How nice for Aventura!

Mitigation: the "Poison Pill to Incorporating," Explored

The strongest argument for incorporation (forming a new city) is that it will allow us to put money we spend on taxes to work here, and not elsewhere in the county.  The amount of money involved has been described as $974,872 [MAC 2003-2004 report], $1,307,643 [MAC 2011-2012 report] and "77 cents for each $1.00 we pay on the assessed value of our homes" [Sky High News, January 2014].

So the logic is: form a new city, and we keep that money at work here, doing things like funding public safety, beautification, stormwater and road improvements, traffic enhancements, park improvements and code enforcement.

But what if there was a law that said that an area "declaring independence" from the county had to keep on paying a surplus to the county?   Well, take a look at this, from the Miami Dade County Code:

Sec. 20-26. - Future Municipalities' Obligations to the County.

(d) The fiscal impact of an incorporation on the remainder of the unincorporated area shall be revenue neutral; provided, however, any municipality which does not meet the foregoing requirement, as a condition of incorporation pursuant to Article V of the Miami-Dade County Home Rule Charter, shall agree to make an annual mitigation payment to the County's Municipal Services Trust Fund in the Unincorporated Municipal Service Area Budget, the amount of which shall be determined by the Board of County Commissioners, in the event of a negative fiscal impact of the municipality's incorporation on the unincorporated area. For purposes of this subsection, "a revenue neutral municipality" is defined as an area that previously, as part of the unincorporated municipal service area, generated revenues equal to or less than the cost of services provided to the area by the County. Any annual mitigation amount determined by the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph shall be established so as not to trigger "most-favored-nation-status" clauses which are contained in any municipal charter.

The point is constantly made that we are a "donor community" which means that we are NOT "revenue neutral" to the county; if we leave, the County loses money.  The county needs that money to keep doing whatever it is doing now (spending it elsewhere, it seems).  The county simply can't afford having a bunch of "donor communities" leave, because it would produce a budget crisis (letting Aventura secede, for instance, was a huge mistake for the county, in retrospect).  And that is why 20-26(d) exists: to protect the county.

How might 20-26(d) be applied in our “new city”?  We don’t really have to guess – when the NE MAC recommended back in 2004-2005 to form a new city, the next step was a hearing by the county Planning Advisory Board (the “PAB”) held on August 8, 2005 at the Jewish Community Center.  Here is what the PAB decided:

“NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOVED BY THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD, that it recommends approval of the Northeast Dade Incorporation, after reviewing staff’s report and analysis of the fiscal viability of the proposed new city including staff’s recommended mitigation payment of 1.0 mill from the assessed 2003 tax rolls”

Recall from the earlier post “Your Taxes Will go Up” that a “mill” is a unit of taxation equal to one-thousandth of the assessed value of a property.  Recall also that the current millage rate in our area is 1.9283 (which means $192 in taxes for every $100,000 in property value).

The first line on the MAC budget says that the “revised real property assessment,” that all the calculations are based on, is $1,041,716,358.  One-thousandth of that amount is over ONE MILLION DOLLARS!  $1,041,716.36, to be exact.  So if the PAB decision on August 8, 2005 stood, today our “new city” would still be paying the county over $1M each year! That's right: it's not a one-time deal, it's forever.

If the NE MAC objective is to keep the taxes from going up (I don't know that this even is an objective, but I've heard that said at the meetings), and the current “target” is 1.9283 mills, then the “new city” would either have to give over half of its tax revenues to the county (1 mill from every 1.9283 collected: 1.9283 - 1.000 = 0.9283), or it has to face the reality that the target is an illusion.

This is why the mitigation issue is so central to the discussion of Incorporation, and it had largely been ignored so far in the hopes that the county (at its 2/27/2014 meeting) would take up the Mayor’s recommendation (supported by the Annexation and Incorporation Task Force) to repeal the “poison pill”.  Now we know that the issue hasn’t been addressed, and that a “consultant” will study the issue and give recommendations “some day.”

The problem is: the NE MAC doesn’t have time to wait for that report, or for resolution of the mitigation issue: the MAC only exists until February 2015.  So it was noted at the 3/27/14 meeting of the MAC that the budget should reflect the mitigation payment to the county, which kind of throws a cold bucket of water on the whole process. 

So if you attend a MAC meeting, and you hear the word “mitigation”: pay attention, because mitigation is the difference between: (A) having a ‘surplus’ $974,872/$1,307,643/"77 cents for each $1.00 we pay " and (B) having a deficit.  In other words, it makes all the difference in the world.

None of this is an argument against incorporating, but it is a call for the NE MAC to not make its decisions in a vacuum: if the mitigation payment is going to be implemented, it needs to be acknowledged (budgeted for) and negotiated with the County BEFORE a vote on incorporation takes place. 

NE MAC meeting March 27 (recap)

Not many blog posts lately due to lack of activity "West of Aventura." 

There were developments in crime and safety, with robbers fleeing police helicopter chase after a home invasion in Oak Forest (s. of 203rd street and West of 24th Ave), and the arrest of a paroled thief who returned to the scene of his former crimes in Highland Oaks: back on the job breaking into unlocked cars.  So lots of development in crime and punishment, not so much on self-determination.

The MAC, which itself only has 2 years to consider the issue of incorporation, cancelled meeting in February because it was expecting ground-breaking progress from the County that would give the MAC direction on several key issues.  As discussed in the prior posts, that direction did not come.

So the MAC found itself, in a way, starting over again, with a discussion of procedure, the boundaries being considered, and its timeline for consideration: not very substantive issues given the age of the MAC.

Timeline: it was confirmed that the NE MAC first met (in its present form) held its first meeting in late February 2013.  The county code Section 20-29(E) provides that the MAC must complete its study within 24 months.  This means the MAC must "wrap it up" in 11 months.  The county representative was asked if incorporation could possibly be on the ballot in the November general election (when people actually vote).  He answered that since it takes the county government about 120 days to set an election, that the vote would likely be no sooner than mid-2015.  One of the most-asked questions about incorporation is "when is the vote", so there's your answer: 2015.

Boundaries:  The county staff were challenged on a statement they had made previously: that the boundaries being considered by the NE MAC could not be changed to exclude the [vocal anti-incorporation] condos in the SW part of the study area.  The challenge was twofold: (i) there is NOT a prohibition against an incorporation that creates an "enclave" (county representative Jorge Fernandez said the opposite at a meeting in 2013), and (ii) there may be no such "enclave" anyway, because the condos would be "attached" to the unincorporated area to the west of I-95.  There was some friction here: Jorge Fernandez didn't want to pursue a change to the boundaries, and some members of the MAC wouldn't be shrugged off so easily (again), so it was decided that the county attorney would be consulted for an opinion on the matter. 

County Meeting Update:  The county representative (Fernandez) glossed over the [disappointing] February 27 meeting of county commissioners, where the "tough" issues on both incorporation and annexation were basically deferred.  The county is going to hire a "consultant" to study the issue and make recommendations (again), and the consultant hasn't even been selected yet, so there is no help on the critical issue of mitigation (below), and likely won't be during the MAC's 2-year lifespan.

Budget Discussion:  Since the county gave no direction on Mitigation, there is a big issue facing the MAC.  Recall that "Mitigation" is the idea that if a "donor community" such as ours incorporates (forms a new city), the County would lose money on the deal, and nobody likes losing money.  So the county has a "poison pill" in the county laws that says 'if a donor community incorporates, we want to keep getting paid.'  See how that might be a little devastating to a new city that had hoped to "keep those tax dollars at work locally and not spent elsewhere in the county?"  Jorge Fernandez suggested that in other recent incorporations (in Miami Lakes, Doral and Palmetto Bay) the law had been enforced loosely, but that's not very comforting coming from a guy who was caught in a lie about the boundaries (see 2 paragraphs up). It was decided that the budget for the "new city" would have to account for mitigation payments to the county, until the county stops dragging its feet and addresses the issue (very unlikely to happen before the MAC wraps up in February 2015).

Mitigation is such a critical issue to incorporation that it deserves it's own post, coming up next.

Aventura Mall: Not Big Enough for Ya?

What impact will Aventura Mall growing in size to become the SECOND largest retail mall in the United States have on traffic and planning "West of Aventura"?

Summary from the February 21 issue of the Miami Herald:

• Mall will soon demolish its existing food court to build a new three-story wing of stores and a parking garage of up to seven levels tall.
• Turnberry Associates, got the go-ahead from the Aventura City Commission earlier this month, and expects to begin construction by the end of the year.
• 241,000 sf expansion will be constructed on the current food court site, near the JCPenney store. The parking garage could include as many as 1,400 spaces.
• The Aventura Mall already is Florida’s largest mall and one of the nation’s biggest, with 2.7 million square feet of floor space. That makes it the nation’s 16th largest, according to Mall Directory of America; by other measures, it comes in as the third largest. It also is one of the top five highest grossing malls in the country in terms of sales per square foot, according to Turnberry.
• the mall will create an enclosed transportation facility for buses on the ground floor of the new parking deck. “The bus stops are currently at five to six locations around the mall and are not that convenient to some people,” Aventura City Manager Eric Soroka said. “It is not an ideal situation as far as … mixing the pedestrian and motor vehicle traffic. This will allow all traffic from … buses to go into one consolidated place, which will be safer and … more convenient for people to use mass transit to get to the mall.”
• Aventura is currently reviewing a traffic impact study submitted by Turnberry, said Joanne Carr, Aventura’s community development director.

From Miami Today News

• three-story, 241,000-square-foot retail wing and a seven-level parking garage would be the mall’s second major expansion since 2008.
• Wikipedia ranks it third with 2.7 million square feet of retail space behind the Mall of America outside Minneapolis and the King of Prussia Mall outside Philadelphia.  The proposed addition would push Aventura Mall into the No. 2 spot above the King of Prussia Mall.
• Proposed retail wing would be between the JCPenney and Macy’s department stores
• The proposed garage would have about 1,400 parking spaces and feature a “transit facility” for buses, shuttle vans and taxis.
• If the final plan meets current zoning requirements for the site, it will only have to undergo an administrative review by city departments and their consultants. If a zoning variance is needed, it would need to be approved by a vote of a city board or boards, Ms. Carr said.
• The expansion plan was submitted to the city at about the same time the mall’s owners had its mortgage raised by $770 million to be refinanced at $1.2 billion.  The loan was sold to investors as part of a commercial mortgage-backed securities trust, the South Florida Business Journal reported, but the story did not mention the proposed expansion or whether the two are related.
• The mall was renovated in 2006 and expanded in 2008.  The 2008 expansion cost about $125 million and included construction of a two-story, 167,000-square-foot Nordstrom department store. The project also included a three-level retail wing and a three-story parking garage.  Prior to that, Aventura Mall was expanded and repositioned, doubling its size in 1997.
• According to Fitch Ratings, Aventura Mall’s tenants generated sales of about $1.4 billion in 2012. The firm said the mall draws about 28 million visits a year, making it the nation’s second-most visited mall behind the Mall of America.

February 27 BCC meeting PART 2: "Things to Come"

There was lots of meaty stuff left on the cutting room floor at the 2/27 meeting.  This post digs into the details of these items, which were deferred but not defeated.  In no particular order: 

Special Item #8
ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO ANNEXATIONS; CREATING SECTION 20-4.3 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROHIBITING THE FILING, CONSIDERATION, APPROVAL OF OR REFERENDUM ON ANNEXATION REQUESTS IF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED CONFLICT WITH THE BOUNDARIES OF ANY MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGARDLESS OF WHEN SUCH COMMITTEE WAS CREATED; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE APPLIES TO PENDING AND FUTURE ANNEXATION REQUESTS; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE 

It's not breaking news to say here what has already been posted on Nextdoor: if this item had been voted on last week, Annexation with Aventura would have become against the law - it's that simple.  The item was a huge surprise, was only known the day before the meeting, and would have left "West of Aventura" with only 2 choices (new city or status quo) instead of 3 (annexation being the third) if it had passed. 


Special item #11:
ORDINANCE RELATING TO INCORPORATION PROCEDURES; PROVIDING THAT A REQUEST OR PETITION FOR INCORPORATION SHALL NOT BE FILED NOR ANY FILED PETITION FOR INCORPORATION BE HEARD, CONSIDERED, OR APPROVED WHERE THE INCORPORATION REQUEST OR PETITION CREATES A NEW ENCLAVE; CREATING SECTION 20-21.2 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE 

In the supporting memo it is noted that the MDC Code 20-3.1 "precludes the Board from considering an annexation application that creates a new enclave" BUT "20-23(B)(1)(c) does not preclude the Board considering an incorporation that creates a new enclave."

This is very interesting, because in a 2013 meeting of the MAC, Secretary Rochelle Matza was told by Jorge Hernandez (Office of Management and Budget) that the condominiums in the SW part of the study area could not be excluded from the MAC study area, since doing so would create an enclave.  This resolution acknowledges this is not the case. 

Special item #7:
ORDINANCE RELATING TO INCORPORATION PROCEDURES FOR MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES; AMENDING SECTION 20-29 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; SPECIFYING CRITERIA FOR MEMBERSHIP, LOCATION AND STANDARDS FOR MEETING FACILITY, AND TIME FOR MEETINGS; PROVIDING APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE 

This one could be important "West of Aventura": it provides for amendments that would require MAC members "possess a variety of views on whether the study area should become incorporated" and "represent all geographical areas within the [MAC study area]."  WOW!  That would make the NE MAC look pretty bad, since it was initially stacked with "new city advocates" (in 2004/05), and even now in 2014 they all reside in the North end of the study area (no condos, no Ojus, no Presidential Estates even).  Section 2 of the background indicates that the ordinance would only apply to new MACs, but it WOULD apply to the filling of any vacancies on an existing MAC!  Keep an eye on this one. 

Special item #9:
ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO BOUNDARY CHANGE PROCEDURES; AMENDING SECTIONS 20-3 AND 20-4 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA TO PROVIDE THAT PETITIONS FOR BOUNDARY CHANGES SHALL REQUIRE CONSENT OF TWENTY PERCENT OF REGISTERED ELECTORS IN THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE 

Voters decided in November of 2012 to amend the MDC Home Rule Charter to provide that 20% of resident electors in an area could sign an incorporation petition to get a MAC process started.  Annexations by petition require 25%, and this proposal would change that number to the same 20% voters approved for incorporation. 

Special item #6:
ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE INCORPORATION OF NEW MUNICIPALITIES; AMENDING SECTION 20-26 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE, FLORIDA; DELETING THE REQUIREMENT THAT MUNICIPALITIES PAY FOR MIAMI- DADE COUNTY SPECIALIZED POLICE SERVICES FROM ITS MUNICIPAL MILLAGE OR OTHER MUNICIPAL FUNDS; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE 

Someone in our community living on NE 199th Street spoke against this one, and she was the only person to speak on it either way.  The ordinance would amend 20-26 of the Code, deleting the requirement that municipalities (including any "new city" West of Aventura), no longer pay for specialized police services which include narcotics ("Miami Vice"), homicide ("Dexter"), sexual crimes ("Law and Order: SVU"), crime scene investigations ("CSI Miami") - basically all the things they make TV shows out of.  The rationale for this is that MDC does not currently charge municipalities for such services.  The question is: as more and more areas incorporate or are annexed, will the budget for these important services shrink?, or will they just be funded differently?

Special Item #3:
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING BOARD POLICY FAVORING ANNEXATIONS BY SMALL ECONOMICALLY CHALLENGED MUNICIPALITIES AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR OR THE MAYOR'S DESIGNEE TO PROVIDE RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES TO HELP ENSURE SUCH MUNICIPALITIES ARE ABLE TO ANNEX UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY 

This one acknowledges that lots of these "under 18,000 resident" villages in MDC are struggling, and that their only way to stabilize and improve their tax base is to annex surrounding lands.  It begs the question: if the annexing city is already challenged, who'd want to be annexed by them?

Special Item #4:
ORDINANCE RELATING TO ANNEXATION PROCEDURES; REQUIRING CONSENT FROM PROPERTY OWNERS IN AN AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED, IF THERE IS NO REQUIRED VOTE OF RESIDENT ELECTORS BECAUSE THERE ARE 250 OR FEWER RESIDENT ELECTORS IN THE AREA AND THE AREA IS FIFTY PERCENT OR LESS DEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL; PROVIDING THAT SUCH REQUIREMENT IS APPLICABLE TO PENDING AND FUTURE ANNEXATION REQUESTS, UNLESS SUCH REQUESTS HAVE RECEIVED A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD ON OR BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE; AMENDING SECTION 20-9 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA (''CODE''); PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE   

The BCC can currently accomplish an annexation by ordinance (without a vote of resident electors) if there are under 250 resident electors in the area, and the area is less than 50% developed residential.  This change would provide that in those situations, at least 50% of the resident electors in the area consent to the annexation.  It's a pretty big change, and would prevent "serial killer" annexors (cities who avoid the need for a vote by just biting off pieces, <250 resident electors in size, one after another).



Expect to see all of these items discussed in 3 months when County Mayor Gimenez delivers his report ("Special Item 1" described in the last post) to the Commissioners, and the debate rages once again.

County Comission Meeting 2/27, PART 1: "No Direction"

At the January 30th meeting of the NE Municipal Advisory Committee (the "MAC"), much emphasis was placed on a February 27th meeting of the full Board of County Comissioners (the "BCC") to discuss issues related to Annexation and Incorporation.  The BCC meeting was so central to the MAC's discussions, in fact, that the MAC decided to have no meeting in February, to await guidance from the county.

Guidance on what?  
As discussed in earlier posts, our area is at a standstill because of the "poison pill" to incorporation (mitigation) which is a huge financial obstacle, and the "poison pills" to annexation (utility revenues, franchise revenues, and mitigation).  The expectation was that some direction would be given, which would (i) give Aventura the necessary tools to conduct a 2014 update to its feasibility study on annexation, and (ii) allowing the MAC to properly construct a budget for incorporation.

The meeting was promoted heavily enough to generate some coverage from the local rag (Miami Herald), who had completely ignored earlier meetings of the issues, and the hearings of the Annexation and Incorporation Task Force.
The story is viewable here.  And for you seriously die-hard followers, the entire 5-hour meeting was recorded, and viewable here.


The agenda was only made available the night before the meeting, and it really is worth a read.  You can find it here, and of the 11 special items on the agenda, none of them addressed the "poison pills", and only 4 of them were ultimately even voted on.


The most notable development was therefore the BCC kicking the ball back to the Mayor.  So here is a summary of all the recent events:

• April 1, 2013: Mayor drafts memo urging elimination of "poison pills"
• Summer, 2013: AITF meets and also recommends eliminating "poison pills"
• Fall, 2013: AITF discredited due to corrupt members (indicted Mayors)
• March 27, 2014: BCC asks Mayor for another report, due in 90 days.

There was a lot of frustration from the audience who came in numbers to protest specific actions related to their specific areas.  The "red shirt" brigade from "West of Aventura" was out in full force, and as you can see in the video link, many of them had their say on the evils being planned and committed.


So Mayor Gimenez will have under 3 months to report and recommend on several key items, including (i) whether additional unincorporated areas should be considered "areas of significance" that should remain in County hands; (ii) whether the area outside the "urban development boundary" should similarly remain in County hands; (iii) whether the BCC should further strengthen policies preferring annexation to incorporation; (iv) whether police and fire services should be considered regional in nature and remain at the county level when new cities are created and (v) whether existing County debt would be affected by additional annexations/incorporations.


The language promoting annexation over incorporation is interesting.  As noted in a prior post, there are 34 municipalities within MDC already.  As the Skylake HOA noted, 17 of those villages have a smaller population then the 18,000 "West of Aventura."   Just open a road atlas and you can see what a patchwork mess MDC has become: 34 tiny kingdoms, each with its own king or queen, and sheriff. Perhaps the BCC recognizes a need to promote sensible annexations over yet more hamlets, since the number could easily exceed 50 municipalities in MDC the way things are going.


So: the first resolution passed at the 2/27 meeting of the BCC was to have the Mayor prepare a report in 90 days.


The second resolution was to create an annexation/incorporation website, to be launched in 60 days.  No controversy there.  In fact, I thought it already existed at: http://www.miamidade.gov/managementandbudget/incorporation-annexation.asp


The 3rd item passed was 
"ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO BOUNDARY CHANGE AND INCORPORATION PROCEDURES; AMENDING SECTIONS 20-6 AND 20-22 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA TO DELETE REQUIREMENT FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION BY A COMMITTEE OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FOR PURPOSES OF MAKING A COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO THE FULL PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD ON PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS AND INCORPORATIONS; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE."

This basically eliminates a duplicative process, since the full Planning Advisory Board still reviews, but now does it as a full board, and not first by a committee.  

The remaining special items on the agenda, about 7 of them, were deferred (the hope being that the Mayor would address them in his report).  

The next post will discusses the items that were NOT voted on.  Spoiler alert: Annexation with Aventura is almost shot down in flames. 

"Your Taxes Will Go Up"

I hate those signs.  And with a vote not expected until 2015, we will all be looking at them for a very long time.*

[*2018 edit: it's years later, and those signs are still here!]  

Railing against taxes hasn't been as popular in America since tea was being thrown in the Boston harbor.  Taxes obviously pay for necessary services, but 100% of the people are never going to agree on the definition of "necessary."  Seniors, for example, may object to paying for schools if they don't have children (but will be sorry 10 years later when zombie skater punks crash through the front door).  And yuppies (is that still a thing?) might object to paying for libraries (also known as "the place where homeless people can use the internet").  And of course the tea party just wants to "drown government in a bathtub," but that's for another blog.

Today's discussion of taxes at the local level begins with the multi-colored "Real Estate Property Taxes" bill you receive every year in around October.  You must still have yours from last year, so go and get it (it's a blog... I can wait).  Then follow along.  C'mon. ... it'll be fun!

There are 5 sections of the bill:
Miami-Dade School Board appears in pink
State and Other appears in orange
Miami Dade County follows in blue [the focus of this post]
Municipal Governing Board is in green

Then there is a white box for "non-ad valorem assessments" where (if applicable) any special taxing districts, such as guard gate, roving patrol, other security, garbage service, etc. are reflected.

In Miami Dade County section, you will find these line items:
County Wide Operating
County Wide Debt Service
**Unincorporated Operating**  <-- focus!
Library District
Fire Rescue Operating
Fire Rescue Debt Service

In the geographical area under study by the Municipal Advisory Committee (the "MAC") - an area described and pictured in the first post entitled "Nomenclature" - the "Unincorporated Operating" millage rate is 1.9283.  This means that for every $1000 of assessed property value we pay $1.9283 (so a $100K assessment would result in being charged 100 x 1.9283, or $192.83).  All that other stuff isn't going to change - not even super-wealthy Aventura has its own Fire Department.

You can find a table of all the millage rates in Miami Dade County at: http://www.miamidade.gov/pa/library/2017-proposed-millage-chart.pdf. 

Rates range from a low of 1.7261 in Aventura to 9.7000 in Biscayne Park.  Also notable is North Miami Beach at 6.6036 (annexation by NMB is used as a "scare tactic" by the pro-incorporationists).  Our rate is the "Uninc. County" amount of 1.9283.

If "West of Aventura" became a new city (Village-At-Law, West Aventura, etc.), it would have a new millage rate, so the 1.9283 would change to "X".  The question is: will "X" equal the lower rate of 1.7261 Aventura pays (answer: no, we don't have the 3rd largest mall in the universe), or will it be closer to the 6.6036 paid in neighboring NMB.  The answer is "something in between."  Even Sunny Isles Beach (incorporated 1997) has a rate of 2.700, and they have more million-dollar condos than God (what do they do with all that money?).

The accounting gurus within a subcommittee of the MAC have cooked up a budget that results in a millage rate equal to the current 1.7261 rate, but as they say in securities prospectuses: "past performance is no guarantee of future results."

So let's make a worst-case scenario: let's assume the "new city" millage rate eventually matches NMB's rate of 6.6036.  How would our tax bills look in that event? 

Well, using a tax bill of a local celebrity (identity concealed) who has an "Unincorporated Operating" tax in 2013 of 274.63.  If the 1.7261 rate was increased in "new city" to the NMB rate of 6.6036, the "Unincorporated Operating" tax in 2013 would have been $940.50, which would be an increase of $665.87 - not chicken scratch by any means, but the net effect on the bottom line would be 19% - and this assumes a "worst case" millage rate equal to NMB (under the best case the increase would be 0%, so assume something in between).

Another example, taking another local celebrity, this time from the condominiums where all the "No to Incorporation" signs come from:

Remember in school when you learned that any number multiplied by "0" is "0".  Well, here is the practical application: No matter the millage rate, if you have a bunch of exemptions and a low-value property, you are not going to notice any difference at all.  So congrats, whiny condos: you get a shiny new city, more police, maybe even a bus service to the mall or bingo or whatever it is you do, and you don't owe uncle County one red cent next year, just like last year.  So stop printing all those damn "NO" signs that moan about taxes, and concentrate on the developers! 
 
Ok, one more celebrity: a more recent resident (like many people reading blogs), and from inside Highland Lakes (like most people who are attending meetings on incorporation).  As a more recent homebuyer, this taxpayer has a higher assessed value, because he/she/they didn't buy their home when it cost some multiple of the what the people who bought 30 years ago paid.

Whoooeee!  That's a tax bill that would make a person in the condominiums cry.  Total bill is $7,464, of which $656.21 is for "Unincorporated Operating" at the current millage of 1.7261.  So again, assuming a "worst case" rate of 6.6036, this taxpayer's rate in a new city would be $656/1.721 x 6.6036 = $2510, an increase of $1853, or about 25%!  See why the people on the "YES" to incorporation side use annexation by NMB as a scare-tactic?   

So the conclusion is: if there is a tax increase, it will be experienced disproportionally by (i) people who own homes in the NE, not condos in the SW, (ii) people who moved to the area recently, more than those who have lived here for decades, and (iii) people who want the very services they will have to pay for.  These are all generalizations of course, but I think they are fair ones, and to reiterate: these calculations are "worst case" and should not be anywhere CLOSE to the NMB milage rate.

I end the post with a math assignment.  Take the number from your last tax bill in the blue section called "Unincorporated Operating", then divide it by our current millage rate of 1.7261, then multiply it by whatever rate you think we will end up paying in the future (you can even choose your own rate from the table at the beginning of this post).  Then you can make an informed decision as to whether the benefits of incorporation are worth that extra price tag.  Let me know in the comments: (i) your assumptions (what the rate will be); (ii) how much more you end up paying, and (iii) whether you think the benefits exceed the cost, or vice versa.

Not interested in all the math?  Well, if we were annexed by Aventura, you could just put down your pencils because everything would be about the same.  

Unfortunately, as as will be explored in the next post, the County doesn't appear interested in having us pursue annexation discussions.  Analysis of the critical 2/27 county meeting on incorporation/annexation in the next TWO posts!